Views on Spirituality in Old Age: What Does Love Have to Do with It?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is suggested that the author consult with an expert in English grammar/editing. There are numerous awkwardly worded sentences and grammatical errors.
The author states his/her theoretical framework is based on Caring Science, but does not reference Jean Watson (the founder of Caring Science). I think it is imperative that the author includes Jean Watson's work.
The author does not state the methodology for the qualitative metasynthesis "sub-study." For example, the author needs to state what data-bases were used, how many studies were included, how many excluded, includsion and exclusion criteria, etc.
The author does not describe the methodology for the qualitative portion. For example, needs to include sample size, how recruited, interview questions, length of interviews, methods of recording, methods of analysis, etc. (See COREQ)
The author also needs to describe the methodology for the theoretical literature review.
The article contains some interesting information, but it is poorly organized and difficult to follow. The author may want to consider breaking this information up into several articles. For example, write one article based on the interviews following the COREQ guidelines.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. I understand there are three types of concerns:
Language. The manuscript has been through an English proofreading service. I do hope it now is satisfactory
Caring science. I am familiar with the theory of Watson. However, the caring science in Scandinavian countries does hold a large amount of research and theory building, sufficient as a theoretical basis for research. This might not be familiar to an English speaking audience, as there are basic texts available only in Scandinavian languages.
The method. The thesis that forms the basis for this article, consists of four published papers. In these peer-reviewed papers, the research methods are described. Therefore, I choose not to describe methods in detail. However, I added a footnote providing more details about the included participants in the interview study (sub-study II), and a few more details about the number of studies in the meta-synthesis (sub-study I) and the theoretical paper (sub-study III) (see section 5)
I have tried to improve the understanding of the articles' organization, and more explicitly referred to the corresponding research paper describing each sub-study.
Sincerely, the author
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an extremely well written and cogent paper. It is excellent and the author should be congratulated on articulating the concepts so well. The paper is intelligent, thoughtful, considered of of a high standard. It is well researched, elegantly constructed and has logical flow. It is unusal to find academic work of this quality. Highly recommended
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am grateful for your wonderful review. A few adjustments were done to the text, although the organisation of the manuscript is kept.
The manuscript has been through an English proofreading service. I do hope it now is satisfactory.
Thank you!
Sincerely, the author
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did a commendable job improving the manuscript. The flow of the article is logical and clear now. The methods were also made clear. Definite improvements in English language use! Recommend publishing in the journal
